- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:25:06 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: >> TEST 5: >> ObjectPropertyAssertion(:p :x _:y) >> >> does not entail >> >> ObjectPropertyAssertion(:p :x _:y) > > One can mitigate the surprise of test 5 by allowing users to set the > scope of the bnode ids I prefered earlier blurb where you talked about renaming the bnodes (in this case with the identity function) earlier text: [[ The solution, I think, is to point out that one is permitted to substitue individualNames for fresh individualNames without changing the meaning of an ontology. ]] > >> TEST 6: >> ObjectPropertyAssertion(:p :x _:y) >> ObjectPropertyAssertion(:p :x :z) >> ClassAssertion( :p ObjectExactCardinality( 1, :x ) ) >> >> is consistent > This test was motivated because it wasn't clear to me that your definition said this. As long as its meant to say this, then I am happy at this stage, (it's more important to understand the intent than the actual text right now) Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 13:25:25 UTC